Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | Morant61 | 217063 | ||
Greetings Rakpak! I have not had the chance to welcome you to the forum yet. Welcome! In response to your post, allow me to make three points. 1) There are a variety of types of literature in Scripture. There is poetry. There is prophecy. There is didactic or teaching material. There is narrative. Each type of literature must be approached differently. Certainly, in terms of doctrine, didactic material should be given the highest regard. Almost every verse you cite to support that Christians are still bound by the law are narrative references that do not directly address the question of the relationship between Christians and the law. For instance, Acts 13:42, 13:44, 16:32, and 18:4 all mention the Sabbath, but say nothing at all about whether or not a Christian was bound by the Sabbath. Certainly, the Jews in the first century meet on the Sabbath. That is all these verses affirm. 2) While we are not bound by the law, there are aspects of the law (particularly the moral commands of God) which we will live out because of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Scripture affirms that we will not walk in the works of the flesh. So, adultery, lying, ect..., would certainly not be something that Christian should do, as they are in direct violation of the Spirit's leading. Rom. 13:9 certainly supports this view. As Christians, we will love God and love our neighbor. But, this does not mean that we are subject to the mosaic law. 3) In my post, I included a lengthy series of quotes from Galatians. You did not respond directly to Paul clear teaching. No matter what you may think about the law, Paul is quite clear on the matter. Gal. 3:22 - " But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. 23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." Clearly, our relationship to the law has changed in Christ. Paul speaks of submission to the law as being made slaves again. He clearly says: Gal. 5:1 - "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Gal 5:2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Gal 5:3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. Gal 5:4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." This is a major concern in the modern church. The same error that was active in the church at Galatia is still active today. We have many Christians who are being taught that they MUST obey the Law. Paul says this is 'another' gospel, which is no gospel at all. It is a false gospel. If Paul (or anyone else in the NT) was advocating that we continue to be obedient to the Law, then why did he say: Gal. 2:19 - "For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God." Why did he say? Gal. 2:14 - "When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? Gal 2:15 "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' Gal 2:16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." Why did he say? Gal. 3:25 - "Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." Why does he speak so forcibly to those who 'want to be under the law'? (Gal. 4:21-31) I would encourage you to respond to this didactic passages my friend. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217091 | ||
Tim, In short. Galatians was written to churches that existed in the first century when the predominate belief among Jewish (believers in Jesus and non-believers) was that Gentiles could not enter the covenant or get saved unless they went through certain processes and adhered to a particular set of rules (halacha - how to walk out the commands). This "process" was punctuated by the ritual of circumcision and was often (as can clearly be seen in Paul’s letters among other non-Biblical writings) called "circumcision" for short. "Works of the Law" was what the primary argument centered on. The Qumran Texts confirm the use of this term as a sectarian set of rules required by the group for admittance (all others outside the group were generally referred to as "sinners") Those rules were certainly related to the Law, but were focused on a particular interpretation. None of this changes the words or textual Hermeneutic, it simply enlightens the letter with the issues that were surrounding this community. If Paul allowed this view to stand, the Gospel would be no Gospel. There is no “way” into the presence of God, there is no way of salvation through obedience to The Law or any interpretation of the Law. The Abrahamic story is a perfect narrative to help explain this. Yet, to claim, since “getting into” the covenant family of God is apart from the Law, that this means that God’s Law is void or is cut up (taking out certain laws) is a huge hermeneutic leap. Being “under the law” or better said, “under the condemnation of the law” is wholly different than living within the Righteous decrees of the King and being a member of that Kingdom with its rules. I hesitate to even through my thoughts into this again. I decided to do so because the thread doesn’t appear in the home page anyway. This is a huge discussion and forum posts are generally to short and jumbled to address it well. I personally feel that people approach this issue from a theological perspective and then fit the Texts to meet that understanding. Far too many didactic texts need to be “explained away” to argue that God’s Law is divided into categories and then dismissed. And a final note: if people are offended or feel they are judged by a persons view that the whole of the Law still applies to Christians, then that’s their issue, not the person who holds to that view. I know you didn’t say you felt “judged”, but others have. |
||||||
3 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | Morant61 | 217092 | ||
Greetings MJH! As always, I enjoy your contributions my friend! Certainly, justification and circumcision were the primary focus of Galatians. There were those who argued that a Gentile had to be circumcised in order to be saved. However, I don't think that simply saying we are not justified by the Law goes as far as what Paul was saying. Paul talks about the way of the son and the way of the slave. The way of the slave is the Mosaic law. Paul talks about being dead to the law. Paul talks about no longer being under the supervision of the law. While circumcision is discussed, Paul also makes the point that obedience to any point of the law makes one obligated to it all. So, in light of all that Paul says, I have a hard time agreeing that Paul is saying that we are not saved by obeying the Law, but we are still subject to the Law. I just don't think that this does justice to what Paul is saying. Thanks for your input my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217117 | ||
Tim, Okay, I guess it's been over a year so I can discuss this again. There were two things you mentioned. 1) the way of the slave is the Mosaic law; 2) Paul [never says]...we are still subject to the Law. 2 first: It is true that Paul does not say, "..but you should still obey the commandment of God given through Moses." Here is a bad analogy, but the best I can come up with. We do not say now that we have a new president, "Attention all US Citizens: you still have free speech, and it's still illegal to (fill in the blank)." We don't say that because it's self evident (or should be.) Same in Paul’s day, the only Scriptures they had were the Torah, Prophets, and Writings. In these there was taught a clear "way" to live as well as judges/elders to help them live that way best they could in their specific situation. I will admit that Paul's letter to the Galatians is quick and to the point. I also believe that others in his day also came away with your thoughts on the Law too. "Is Paul saying we should stop obeying the Law?" (Acts 21 shows Jewish Christians who think Paul was teaching this, but Luke makes it clear that these were false charges.) Of course he couldn't say that and remain true to God's Word. I think that when he wrote Romans, he went to much greater lengths to explain himself on this issue. In Rom. 3:31, "Then is the Law annulled through faith? Let it not be! But we establish Law." And since you know Greek, you can confirm that "establish" here can be read, "make stand more firm." Here is the closest place where we see Paul saying that we still obey the Law. I know it’s a big book, but space is short so indulge me :-) 1) The slave is the Mosaic Law? Paul uses a great analogy in Galatians that strikes at the heart of his “adversaries.” They claimed to be “children of Abraham.” But Paul turns their argument around on them and claims they are not the children of Sarah, but Hagar. Why? Abraham received the covenant promise of the seed, but he had no children. Gen 12, and then Gen 15 we clearly see God promise, without condition, to bless Abraham and his seed and the nations. But Abraham didn’t have children. He attempts to cause the Promise to come true in his own strength and ability by taking Hagar. The son of the slave women is the son of “works salvation.” After this, while Abraham believes he has solved the conundrum, God returns and says, No! Not Ishmael, but a son from Sarah. It was Isaac who was the son of the Promise, and that was not by works (of Abraham) but by Faith. Therefore, the attempt to enter the covenant of Promise by works of Law is equal to Hagar the slave women. Enter into the Promise by Faith is Sarah. Also, circumcision was the covenant of the Promise, not the Mosaic Law. I believe circumcision was a reminder that the Promised Seed (and therefore eternal salvation) would come not by man’s strength or ability, but by God. Therefore the very organ used to attempt to secure the promise by works is cut. Yet, in Paul’s day this very sing of the Promise was misconstrued to mean just the opposite. In the end, the Sarah and Hagar comparison to the Law is not to toss out the Law as God’s Way, but to show salvation is not obtained by works. MJH PS-I too enjoy the conversation. I’ve learned so much as a result of this forum over the years. |
||||||
5 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | Morant61 | 217123 | ||
Greetings MJH! I pray that all on the forum will follow your example of grace my friend! We can disagree without being disagreeable. :-) I've been up all night and day, so I'll try to make my response brief. 1) I agree that Paul was not against the law. But, he argues that the law has now (after Christ) served it's purpose. That is how I understand his various comments, such as we are dead to the Law, and we are no longer under it's supervision. As you noted, many did not understand Paul. They thought he was arguing for lawlessness. We are not free to sin. In fact, we now have a much higher standard than the moral law in that we are indwelt and led by the Holy Spirit. His law is now written in our hearts. So, I hope everyone understands that I am not advocating lawlessness. :-) But, I believe that Paul is saying that the Law has run it's course and we are no longer under it in any way. Rituals, feasts, ect..., have all been fulfilled in Christ - and were never meant to save us anyway. 2) Hagar and Sara: You break the illustration down pretty well, but I don't think you give enough credit to Gal. 4:24: "These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar." Paul isn't just contrasting grace and works, but two entirely different covenants - Abraham and Sinai (Promise and Law). In v. 30, he tells us to 'get rid of the slave woman', not just understand her better or apply her in the proper manner. :-) This is one of the reasons why I don't think the justification by law argument goes far enough. Paul calls for a clean break from the entire covenant of Sinai and compares it to slavery. Well, I'd better get some sleep my friend. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||